Cohesion and Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analytic summary of the cohesion-performance relationship in sport. A secondary purpose was to examine the influence of a number of potential moderator variables. Another secondary purpose was to examine the cohesion–performance relationship reported in studies using the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). Standard literature searches produced 46 studies containing a total of 164 effect sizes. Overall, a significant moderate to large relationship was found between cohesion and performance. A moderate effect was found in studies that used the GEQ. A larger cohesion–performance effect was found in refereed publications (vs. nonpublished sources) and for female teams. These results have implications for practitioners in terms of the importance of team building to enhance team cohesion, the nature of those team-building programs (e.g., both task- or social-oriented programs should be beneficial), and their target group (e.g., both interdependent and coactive sport teams should profit).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it